4 ms·

There's at least some evidence that, in fact, the Romney campaign fooled itself into believing the "unskewed" polling models which simply (and incorrectly) disb

There's at least some evidence that, in fact, the Romney campaign fooled itself into believing the "unskewed" polling models which simply (and incorrectly) disbelieved the demographic makeup of the polls. So yeah, it's hard to believe the republican campaign could have run a heavily data-driven campaign. Sorry, what is that evidence? The fact that they were saying they thought they would win? The fact that they didn't give up? Did you really expect them to? It's important not to confuse the public behavior of a campaign with their internal beliefs. And Romney really could have won this, had things gone a little differently.

ajross 14y ago
The late attempts to to throw campaigning and advertising into states late Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (which, by the now-known-to-be-correct polls, were basically unwinnable) are probably the best evidence. There's also the more squishy testimony of journalists and pundits, who reported on genuine surprise coming from the senior Romney people about the exit polls. Karl Rove's freakout on FOX last night probably also counts. None of that proves anything. But I think the burden of proof really goes the other way: the Obama campaign clearly seems to have played the moneyball correctly here. If Romney's folks knew they were going to lose, you'd have to show that. And I don't know how to interpret "Romney really could have won this, had things gone a little differently". If you're talking about polling could have been different had he been winning, then of course: we'd be having the same argument in reverse. Though again, the evidence seems to say that Obama would still have outperformed the popular vote margin and thus have still been running a better data-driven campaign. If you're saying that the data suggested by the end-campaign polls could have supported a Romney win, then no: that's just wrong, as evidenced by the discussion we're having. That kind of thinking is exactly the kind of "faith-based" notion that the Romney campaign is accused of relying on. The data showed a clear Obama victory. The data was right. Period.
- ryanwaggoner 14y ago
  I was interpreting your stance as a verdict on the Romney campaign's behavior over the last couple months, rather than just last night. And a month or two ago, they were behind according to the polls but they definitely could have still won. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin I think are evidence of exactly the opposite: they knew they were going to lose Ohio and they had money to burn, so they threw a hail mary. Because why not?
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Actually... The Romney campaign is reported to have believed they were winning late into the day yesterday. Based on what their model was telling them. Not "faith", but data. A model. Math. I have a strong suspicion in there's a good book in this election- how one set of Big Data led one team in the right direction, and another set of Big Data led the other team in the wrong direction. This to me is the absolutely crucial thing to keep in mind. You can have your model and have your data, but that doesn't mean you've picked the right model and the right data. Not the first time that lesson has been demonstrated, and it won't be the last.
  - jim-greer 14y ago
    The big difference in the models was their assumptions on voter turnout for each side. You can precisely measure what people prefer, but you can't precisely measure whether they will show up next week. So it was the 'art' part of modeling, not the 'science' of statistics, that the conservative pollsters blew. It's hard to know, but one reason for the strong turnout might have been better get-out-the-vote efforts of the kind described here.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      Follow-up articles seem to be indicating the Romney team was indeed wrong about turnout in each direction. Dems turned out more than they expected, Republicans less. Not unreasonably. Most public polls supported that belief. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/30/new-polls-give-gop-enthusiasm-edge/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10...
      - ajross 14y ago
        No, that's just wrong. Most "public polls" (rather: the median pollster -- obviously there were outliers in both directions) supported an Obama victory and a demographic and partisan makeup of the electorate that matched closely what was observed in the election. To claim otherwise is just silly, and perpetuating the "unskewing" nonsense that was proven incorrect. If you're saying that the Romney campaign had "reasonable" justifications for disbelieving the data they saw, then I agree. If you're claiming that they actually had data the supported that position, then you're wrong.

ajross 14y ago

The late attempts to to throw campaigning and advertising into states late Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (which, by the now-known-to-be-correct polls, were basically unwinnable) are probably the best evidence. There's also the more squishy testimony of journalists and pundits, who reported on genuine surprise coming from the senior Romney people about the exit polls. Karl Rove's freakout on FOX last night probably also counts. None of that proves anything. But I think the burden of proof really goes the other way: the Obama campaign clearly seems to have played the moneyball correctly here. If Romney's folks knew they were going to lose, you'd have to show that. And I don't know how to interpret "Romney really could have won this, had things gone a little differently". If you're talking about polling could have been different had he been winning, then of course: we'd be having the same argument in reverse. Though again, the evidence seems to say that Obama would still have outperformed the popular vote margin and thus have still been running a better data-driven campaign. If you're saying that the data suggested by the end-campaign polls could have supported a Romney win, then no: that's just wrong, as evidenced by the discussion we're having. That kind of thinking is exactly the kind of "faith-based" notion that the Romney campaign is accused of relying on. The data showed a clear Obama victory. The data was right. Period.

ryanwaggoner 14y ago
I was interpreting your stance as a verdict on the Romney campaign's behavior over the last couple months, rather than just last night. And a month or two ago, they were behind according to the polls but they definitely could have still won. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin I think are evidence of exactly the opposite: they knew they were going to lose Ohio and they had money to burn, so they threw a hail mary. Because why not?
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Actually... The Romney campaign is reported to have believed they were winning late into the day yesterday. Based on what their model was telling them. Not "faith", but data. A model. Math. I have a strong suspicion in there's a good book in this election- how one set of Big Data led one team in the right direction, and another set of Big Data led the other team in the wrong direction. This to me is the absolutely crucial thing to keep in mind. You can have your model and have your data, but that doesn't mean you've picked the right model and the right data. Not the first time that lesson has been demonstrated, and it won't be the last.
- jim-greer 14y ago
  The big difference in the models was their assumptions on voter turnout for each side. You can precisely measure what people prefer, but you can't precisely measure whether they will show up next week. So it was the 'art' part of modeling, not the 'science' of statistics, that the conservative pollsters blew. It's hard to know, but one reason for the strong turnout might have been better get-out-the-vote efforts of the kind described here.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Follow-up articles seem to be indicating the Romney team was indeed wrong about turnout in each direction. Dems turned out more than they expected, Republicans less. Not unreasonably. Most public polls supported that belief. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/30/new-polls-give-gop-enthusiasm-edge/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10...
    - ajross 14y ago
      No, that's just wrong. Most "public polls" (rather: the median pollster -- obviously there were outliers in both directions) supported an Obama victory and a demographic and partisan makeup of the electorate that matched closely what was observed in the election. To claim otherwise is just silly, and perpetuating the "unskewing" nonsense that was proven incorrect. If you're saying that the Romney campaign had "reasonable" justifications for disbelieving the data they saw, then I agree. If you're claiming that they actually had data the supported that position, then you're wrong.